environmentalism The view that ‘the environment’ (everything that is not man or manmade, apparently) requires protection, usually via *politics. Although dressed up as a science-based ethic, at the extreme this ‘Green’ *ideology has become a fashionable *religion of sentimentality and technophobia whilst also being extremely *authoritarian and even misanthropic in its political aspirations.

Eliminating all of man’s environmental effects is impossible (without the *genocide or demise of all human beings: the most extreme Green ambition, apparently) as new effects will constantly arise in a dynamic *market, and environmental changes arise from a dynamic nature too. Environmentalists tend to hate the dynamism of both and want to stop, or even reverse, *economic development and possibly *natural change itself (maybe mistaking it as human-caused).

Real human-caused environmental problems are chiefly negative effects for which politics is responsible. *Depoliticizing ‘the environment’ largely solves these problems by making those people who are responsible pay and causing the economizing of *resources (see *economic efficiency). Within a *private-property framework, real environmental problems will continue to be tackled efficiently. However, many of the allegedly serious environmental problems are highly speculative if not entirely bogus, partly because bad news sells news media (see *disaster fascination) and partly because they are merely the *dogmata of environmentalism.

>“Real human-caused environmental problems are chiefly
negative effects for which politics is responsible”. Insomuch as
politicians, nor many governments for that matter, do not manufacture products,
but firms do, it is a tad simplistic to suggest that politics is responsible
for human caused environmental problems.

You ignore the explanation that follows the sentence you quote.
Politics interferes with private-property accountability and economising. (But
that paragraph probably needs to be expanded.)

>It is if you are stating that without politics there
would be or never had been “human-caused environmental problems”.

The word “chiefly” seems to preclude that interpretation.
So does the sentence, “Within a *private-property framework, real environmental
problems will continue to be tackled efficiently.”

>History has shown that private has been the main
cause of environmental problems

No, history has shown that lack of private-property
rights and their enforcement is the problem.

>and that various lobby groups or interested parties
have had to fight to get something done about it.

They have sometimes ameliorated and sometimes exacerbated
the problem that lack of private-property rights causes.

>Thus the de-politicizing of the environment will make
no difference.

It will solve the problem efficiently to always have
owners that can sue and be sued for proactively imposed negative externalities.

>Having respect, common-sense, understanding of the
impact of certain activity on the environment and accountability of one’s would
help most. How do you enforce that?

Respecting liberty via private property would help most.
That is best enforced by an anarchical legal system that protects private
property from invasive damage.

“Real human-caused environmental problems are chiefly negative effects for which politics is responsible”. Insomuch as politicians, nor many governments for that matter, do not manufacture products, but firms do, it is a tad simplistic to suggest that politics is responsible for human caused environmental problems. It is if you are stating that without politics there would be or never had been “human-caused environmental problems”. History has shown that private has been the main cause of environmental problems and that various lobby groups or interested parties have had to fight to get something done about it. Thus the de-politicizing of the environment will make no difference. Having respect, common-sense, understanding of the impact of certain activity on the environment and accountability of one’s would help most. How do you enforce that?